Newbie question on stored procedures and linked servers

I have a "main" SQL Server 2005 server and several "farm" SQL Servers using
2005.
I'd like to be able to create stored procedures on the main server and run
them from the farm server against the farm server. For example, one stored
procedure would create a database and tables. I'd like it to live on the main
server and create the database and tables on the farm server.
Is this possible? If so, are there any examples available?
John
In general, stored procedures executing on remote servers are restricted
from changed the schema on the remote server. It's a good security
consideration.
Now there are many 'work-a-rounds'. One that I employ is having the 'main'
server create a SQL script file, dropping that in a location available to
the remote server, and then executing a job that looks for file(s) in that
location (perhaps filtered by naming conventions, etc.), and then executes
that script file.
Perhaps if you provided a bit more details about what you are attempting to
accomplish, someone here will have a better solution.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"JColaizzi" <JColaizzi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:009DE414-CED1-4882-B8F6-FA314C8643BE@.microsoft.com...
> I have a "main" SQL Server 2005 server and several "farm" SQL Servers
> using
> 2005.
> I'd like to be able to create stored procedures on the main server and run
> them from the farm server against the farm server. For example, one stored
> procedure would create a database and tables. I'd like it to live on the
> main
> server and create the database and tables on the farm server.
> Is this possible? If so, are there any examples available?
> John
|||"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> Perhaps if you provided a bit more details about what you are attempting to
> accomplish, someone here will have a better solution.
>
The main server is a data warehouse storing metadata and fact data for
approximately 1000 cubes that have to be produced monthly. The farm servers
are the servers where the cubes will be produced. (We do this now with
Oracle and are moving to SS05.)
I want to avoid having multiple farm servers where if a stored procedure is
changed it has to be propagated to mulitple servers. So in the example above
the stored procedure would accept some variables and create the database and
tables on the farm server that are used to create one of the thousand cubes.
So in essence I want a local server to call a remote server stored procedure
that will create a database and tables on the local server.
John
|||You may wish to look into aspects of schema replication.
With SQL Server 2005, you can replicate Stored Procedures. So you would only
have to manage the main server, and yes, propagation is involved, but it
becomes a background process and part of the database 'system' itself. Not
something that would have to be managed manually.
Calling those replicated 'remote' procedures is, perforce, a normal
operation.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"JColaizzi" <JColaizzi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3ABDDDF1-C638-4FAA-BBE1-A10581257EED@.microsoft.com...
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> The main server is a data warehouse storing metadata and fact data for
> approximately 1000 cubes that have to be produced monthly. The farm
> servers
> are the servers where the cubes will be produced. (We do this now with
> Oracle and are moving to SS05.)
> I want to avoid having multiple farm servers where if a stored procedure
> is
> changed it has to be propagated to mulitple servers. So in the example
> above
> the stored procedure would accept some variables and create the database
> and
> tables on the farm server that are used to create one of the thousand
> cubes.
> So in essence I want a local server to call a remote server stored
> procedure
> that will create a database and tables on the local server.
> John
sql

Newbie question on stored procedures and linked servers

I have a "main" SQL Server 2005 server and several "farm" SQL Servers using
2005.
I'd like to be able to create stored procedures on the main server and run
them from the farm server against the farm server. For example, one stored
procedure would create a database and tables. I'd like it to live on the mai
n
server and create the database and tables on the farm server.
Is this possible? If so, are there any examples available?
JohnIn general, stored procedures executing on remote servers are restricted
from changed the schema on the remote server. It's a good security
consideration.
Now there are many 'work-a-rounds'. One that I employ is having the 'main'
server create a SQL script file, dropping that in a location available to
the remote server, and then executing a job that looks for file(s) in that
location (perhaps filtered by naming conventions, etc.), and then executes
that script file.
Perhaps if you provided a bit more details about what you are attempting to
accomplish, someone here will have a better solution.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"JColaizzi" <JColaizzi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:009DE414-CED1-4882-B8F6-FA314C8643BE@.microsoft.com...
> I have a "main" SQL Server 2005 server and several "farm" SQL Servers
> using
> 2005.
> I'd like to be able to create stored procedures on the main server and run
> them from the farm server against the farm server. For example, one stored
> procedure would create a database and tables. I'd like it to live on the
> main
> server and create the database and tables on the farm server.
> Is this possible? If so, are there any examples available?
> John|||"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> Perhaps if you provided a bit more details about what you are attempting t
o
> accomplish, someone here will have a better solution.
>
The main server is a data warehouse storing metadata and fact data for
approximately 1000 cubes that have to be produced monthly. The farm servers
are the servers where the cubes will be produced. (We do this now with
Oracle and are moving to SS05.)
I want to avoid having multiple farm servers where if a stored procedure is
changed it has to be propagated to mulitple servers. So in the example abov
e
the stored procedure would accept some variables and create the database and
tables on the farm server that are used to create one of the thousand cubes.
So in essence I want a local server to call a remote server stored procedure
that will create a database and tables on the local server.
John|||You may wish to look into aspects of schema replication.
With SQL Server 2005, you can replicate Stored Procedures. So you would only
have to manage the main server, and yes, propagation is involved, but it
becomes a background process and part of the database 'system' itself. Not
something that would have to be managed manually.
Calling those replicated 'remote' procedures is, perforce, a normal
operation.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"JColaizzi" <JColaizzi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3ABDDDF1-C638-4FAA-BBE1-A10581257EED@.microsoft.com...
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> The main server is a data warehouse storing metadata and fact data for
> approximately 1000 cubes that have to be produced monthly. The farm
> servers
> are the servers where the cubes will be produced. (We do this now with
> Oracle and are moving to SS05.)
> I want to avoid having multiple farm servers where if a stored procedure
> is
> changed it has to be propagated to mulitple servers. So in the example
> above
> the stored procedure would accept some variables and create the database
> and
> tables on the farm server that are used to create one of the thousand
> cubes.
> So in essence I want a local server to call a remote server stored
> procedure
> that will create a database and tables on the local server.
> John

Newbie question on stored procedures and linked servers

I have a "main" SQL Server 2005 server and several "farm" SQL Servers using
2005.
I'd like to be able to create stored procedures on the main server and run
them from the farm server against the farm server. For example, one stored
procedure would create a database and tables. I'd like it to live on the main
server and create the database and tables on the farm server.
Is this possible? If so, are there any examples available?
JohnIn general, stored procedures executing on remote servers are restricted
from changed the schema on the remote server. It's a good security
consideration.
Now there are many 'work-a-rounds'. One that I employ is having the 'main'
server create a SQL script file, dropping that in a location available to
the remote server, and then executing a job that looks for file(s) in that
location (perhaps filtered by naming conventions, etc.), and then executes
that script file.
Perhaps if you provided a bit more details about what you are attempting to
accomplish, someone here will have a better solution.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"JColaizzi" <JColaizzi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:009DE414-CED1-4882-B8F6-FA314C8643BE@.microsoft.com...
> I have a "main" SQL Server 2005 server and several "farm" SQL Servers
> using
> 2005.
> I'd like to be able to create stored procedures on the main server and run
> them from the farm server against the farm server. For example, one stored
> procedure would create a database and tables. I'd like it to live on the
> main
> server and create the database and tables on the farm server.
> Is this possible? If so, are there any examples available?
> John|||"Arnie Rowland" wrote:
> Perhaps if you provided a bit more details about what you are attempting to
> accomplish, someone here will have a better solution.
>
The main server is a data warehouse storing metadata and fact data for
approximately 1000 cubes that have to be produced monthly. The farm servers
are the servers where the cubes will be produced. (We do this now with
Oracle and are moving to SS05.)
I want to avoid having multiple farm servers where if a stored procedure is
changed it has to be propagated to mulitple servers. So in the example above
the stored procedure would accept some variables and create the database and
tables on the farm server that are used to create one of the thousand cubes.
So in essence I want a local server to call a remote server stored procedure
that will create a database and tables on the local server.
John|||You may wish to look into aspects of schema replication.
With SQL Server 2005, you can replicate Stored Procedures. So you would only
have to manage the main server, and yes, propagation is involved, but it
becomes a background process and part of the database 'system' itself. Not
something that would have to be managed manually.
Calling those replicated 'remote' procedures is, perforce, a normal
operation.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
"JColaizzi" <JColaizzi@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3ABDDDF1-C638-4FAA-BBE1-A10581257EED@.microsoft.com...
> "Arnie Rowland" wrote:
>> Perhaps if you provided a bit more details about what you are attempting
>> to
>> accomplish, someone here will have a better solution.
> The main server is a data warehouse storing metadata and fact data for
> approximately 1000 cubes that have to be produced monthly. The farm
> servers
> are the servers where the cubes will be produced. (We do this now with
> Oracle and are moving to SS05.)
> I want to avoid having multiple farm servers where if a stored procedure
> is
> changed it has to be propagated to mulitple servers. So in the example
> above
> the stored procedure would accept some variables and create the database
> and
> tables on the farm server that are used to create one of the thousand
> cubes.
> So in essence I want a local server to call a remote server stored
> procedure
> that will create a database and tables on the local server.
> John

Newbie question on SQL code best practice

Team
I wrote following code
Create PROCEDURE asp_nykl_Full_Update_605ProcStat
--@.sku_barcode varchar(12)
AS
--declare @.Err1 int
--begin transaction
UPDATE pix_tran
SET proc_stat_code = 90
FROM ITEM_MASTER
WHERE ITEM_MASTER.sku_id = pix_tran.sku_id
--AND sku_brcd=@.sku_barcode
AND TRAN_TYPE = '605'
AND proc_stat_code = 10
I have been advised that I must put
1. begin and end transaction
2. Must have SELECT ... (UPDLOCK) before update statement
3. Should include "SET NOCOUNT ON" and "SET LOCK_TIMEOUT"
Is it always advisable to do so?
ThanksD Goyal (goyald@.gmail.com) writes:
> Create PROCEDURE asp_nykl_Full_Update_605ProcStat
> --@.sku_barcode varchar(12)
> AS
> --declare @.Err1 int
> --begin transaction
> UPDATE pix_tran
> SET proc_stat_code = 90
> FROM ITEM_MASTER
> WHERE ITEM_MASTER.sku_id = pix_tran.sku_id
> --AND sku_brcd=@.sku_barcode
> AND TRAN_TYPE = '605'
> AND proc_stat_code = 10
> I have been advised that I must put
> 1. begin and end transaction
As long as you only have a single update statement, that's a bit
of overkill - as long as you can be dead sure that the code is running
with implicit_transactions off. This setting is indeed off by default,
but if the procedure is invoked remotely, this is not so. So BEGIN/END
would make it a little safer.
> 2. Must have SELECT ... (UPDLOCK) before update statement
I don't really see the point with this here.
> 3. Should include "SET NOCOUNT ON" and "SET LOCK_TIMEOUT"
SET NOCOUNT ON is indeed recommendable, as without setting SQL Server
produces a rowcount about affected rows which clients more often does
not care about than they do. In fact, our load tool automatically inserts
a SET NOCOUNT ON in all our stored procedures.
SET LOCK_TIMEOUT I can't really comment on, as this is more tied to
business rules. It prevents the procedure from being locked forever,
but then again what should you do if you time out?
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp|||D Goyal wrote:
> Team
> I wrote following code
> Create PROCEDURE asp_nykl_Full_Update_605ProcStat
> --@.sku_barcode varchar(12)
> AS
> --declare @.Err1 int
> --begin transaction
> UPDATE pix_tran
> SET proc_stat_code = 90
> FROM ITEM_MASTER
> WHERE ITEM_MASTER.sku_id = pix_tran.sku_id
> --AND sku_brcd=@.sku_barcode
> AND TRAN_TYPE = '605'
> AND proc_stat_code = 10
> I have been advised that I must put
> 1. begin and end transaction
You can, but it's not always necessary. SQL Server will run that single
statement in a transaction for you if you leave off the begin
tran/commit. Autocommit mode is the default, but if you have standards
in place, you can start a transaction and check @.@.ERROR after each DML
statement and subsequently commit or rollback. It will save you some
headaches should you add a second DML statement to the procedure. In
autocommit mode (without a begin tran) if the first succeeds and the
second statement fails, the first statement still commits.
> 2. Must have SELECT ... (UPDLOCK) before update statement
It's not needed. But if I look at the next item for LOCK_TIMEOUT, I
think I see why it might have been proposed. If you set a lock timeout
to say 5 seconds and try and select the rows with an escalated lock
(would need to be in a transaction), and other processes have locks on
the required pages, the SELECT will abort. But you can do the same
without the SELECT and just leave it to the UPDATE to time out if there
is lock contention.
> 3. Should include "SET NOCOUNT ON" and "SET LOCK_TIMEOUT"
SET NOCOUNT ON is a highly advisable addition to every stored procedure
(first line). I don't generally use a lock timeout unless I'm running
something that I need to make sure doesn't sit there forever in the case
of someone hold extended locks on the required pages.
> Is it always advisable to do so?
> Thanks
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||(1) Single statment like this does not require explicit transactions.
(2) If you are planning for any updates after a read and want to insure that
the data did not change between reads, then you need to add UPDLOCK hint in
your SELECT. If not, I do not see any need.
(3) SET NOCOUNT ON does not have any performance impact. No matter how you
set this option, the @.@.ROWCOUNT value will be affected. It simply does not
send the count as part of the result to the client.
(4) Unless you know how much time you want to wait for a blocked resource, I
would not recommend to change LOCK_TIMEOUT. Remember that this setting change
is for your connection.
"D Goyal" wrote:
> Team
> I wrote following code
> Create PROCEDURE asp_nykl_Full_Update_605ProcStat
> --@.sku_barcode varchar(12)
> AS
> --declare @.Err1 int
> --begin transaction
> UPDATE pix_tran
> SET proc_stat_code = 90
> FROM ITEM_MASTER
> WHERE ITEM_MASTER.sku_id = pix_tran.sku_id
> --AND sku_brcd=@.sku_barcode
> AND TRAN_TYPE = '605'
> AND proc_stat_code = 10
> I have been advised that I must put
> 1. begin and end transaction
> 2. Must have SELECT ... (UPDLOCK) before update statement
> 3. Should include "SET NOCOUNT ON" and "SET LOCK_TIMEOUT"
> Is it always advisable to do so?
> Thanks
>|||satheeshks wrote:
> (3) SET NOCOUNT ON does not have any performance impact. No matter
> how you set this option, the @.@.ROWCOUNT value will be affected. It
> simply does not send the count as part of the result to the client.
I have disagree with # 3.
Using SET NOCOUNT ON can cause a improvement in some queries (batches)
as well as prevent some ADO issues caused by the rowcount information
being returned to the client.
On a test I just performed that inserts 1000 rows into a table in a
loop, the CPU and Reads were the same, but the Duration dropped from an
average of 550ms to 450ms (a 19% improvement in speed).
This test was on local SQL Server box using Query Analyzer. Results
might vary when running on a network or when ignoring the row count
results (which are displayed on screen in QA).
But I would urge the OP to set NOCOUNT ON at the very top of every
stored procedure and also as the first command after connecting should
any embedded SQL be executed from the app.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

newbie question on indices

Hi all,
When one creates a PF or a FK, does SQL server automatically create the
needed indices for optimum speed, or do I have to create them myself in
order to speed join up.
ThanksSQL Server will create indexes for PK and UQ constraint, as they are needed
to quickly find if you
try to insert a duplicate. The PK index is clustered by default and can be o
verridden. SQL Server
does *not* create index for a FK, and such an index can very much improve fo
r instance join
operations (as joins are often done based on PK-FK relations).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Robert Bravery" <me@.u.com> wrote in message news:e8%23gnSPQGHA.3192@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl..
.
> Hi all,
> When one creates a PF or a FK, does SQL server automatically create the
> needed indices for optimum speed, or do I have to create them myself in
> order to speed join up.
> Thanks
>|||Thanks
Robert
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:O1jbIVPQGHA.3848@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> SQL Server will create indexes for PK and UQ constraint, as they are
needed to quickly find if you
> try to insert a duplicate. The PK index is clustered by default and can be
overridden. SQL Server
> does *not* create index for a FK, and such an index can very much improve
for instance join
> operations (as joins are often done based on PK-FK relations).
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Robert Bravery" <me@.u.com> wrote in message
news:e8%23gnSPQGHA.3192@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>sql

newbie question on DTS

Hi,
I am trying to create a DTS package to transfer tables and views from SQL
Server to MySQL, the tables and views I want to transfer do not exist in
MySQL yet. In DTS designer I created the connections to SQL server and
MySQL server without problems, then tried to use "Data Transform Task" to
transfer, the problem I have, "Data Transform Task" tries to map tables
from SQL Server to the tables in MySQL, that defies my whole purpose.
Please help! I am using SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition.
I may be incorrect on this, but I don't think that you can transfer objects
(i.e., table schema) to other vendors' databases.
That would require that the DTS Import/Export Wizard have intimate knowledge
of each vendors permutation of the SQL DDL.
Of course, as inferred above, I haven't attempted to transfer objects to
MySQL. I would expect the DTS Export Wizard to provide me the option to
transfer the table as well as the data IF it were possible.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Raymond Du" <rdrd@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eTEI4moBHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am trying to create a DTS package to transfer tables and views from SQL
> Server to MySQL, the tables and views I want to transfer do not exist in
> MySQL yet. In DTS designer I created the connections to SQL server and
> MySQL server without problems, then tried to use "Data Transform Task" to
> transfer, the problem I have, "Data Transform Task" tries to map tables
> from SQL Server to the tables in MySQL, that defies my whole purpose.
> Please help! I am using SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition.
>

newbie question on DTS

Hi,
I am trying to create a DTS package to transfer tables and views from SQL
Server to MySQL, the tables and views I want to transfer do not exist in
MySQL yet. In DTS designer I created the connections to SQL server and
MySQL server without problems, then tried to use "Data Transform Task" to
transfer, the problem I have, "Data Transform Task" tries to map tables
from SQL Server to the tables in MySQL, that defies my whole purpose.
Please help! I am using SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition.I may be incorrect on this, but I don't think that you can transfer objects
(i.e., table schema) to other vendors' databases.
That would require that the DTS Import/Export Wizard have intimate knowledge
of each vendors permutation of the SQL DDL.
Of course, as inferred above, I haven't attempted to transfer objects to
MySQL. I would expect the DTS Export Wizard to provide me the option to
transfer the table as well as the data IF it were possible.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Raymond Du" <rdrd@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eTEI4moBHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am trying to create a DTS package to transfer tables and views from SQL
> Server to MySQL, the tables and views I want to transfer do not exist in
> MySQL yet. In DTS designer I created the connections to SQL server and
> MySQL server without problems, then tried to use "Data Transform Task" to
> transfer, the problem I have, "Data Transform Task" tries to map tables
> from SQL Server to the tables in MySQL, that defies my whole purpose.
> Please help! I am using SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition.
>

newbie question on DTS

Hi,
I am trying to create a DTS package to transfer tables and views from SQL
Server to MySQL, the tables and views I want to transfer do not exist in
MySQL yet. In DTS designer I created the connections to SQL server and
MySQL server without problems, then tried to use "Data Transform Task" to
transfer, the problem I have, "Data Transform Task" tries to map tables
from SQL Server to the tables in MySQL, that defies my whole purpose.
Please help! I am using SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition.I may be incorrect on this, but I don't think that you can transfer objects
(i.e., table schema) to other vendors' databases.
That would require that the DTS Import/Export Wizard have intimate knowledge
of each vendors permutation of the SQL DDL.
Of course, as inferred above, I haven't attempted to transfer objects to
MySQL. I would expect the DTS Export Wizard to provide me the option to
transfer the table as well as the data IF it were possible.
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Raymond Du" <rdrd@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eTEI4moBHHA.4024@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am trying to create a DTS package to transfer tables and views from SQL
> Server to MySQL, the tables and views I want to transfer do not exist in
> mysql yet. In DTS designer I created the connections to SQL server and
> mysql server without problems, then tried to use "Data Transform Task" to
> transfer, the problem I have, "Data Transform Task" tries to map tables
> from SQL Server to the tables in MySQL, that defies my whole purpose.
> Please help! I am using SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition.
>sql

Newbie question on dbo permission

Hi all,
I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
procedures.
however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
example,
permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
owner 'dbo'.
so after googling around, I found out I had to do
GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
then i could execute it.
so i have these questions
1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
need to a dbo?
2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
[dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execute
access to it?
3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks
"Liming" <lmxudotnet@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168466707.519839.206840@.77g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
> to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
> procedures.
> however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
> example,
> permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
> owner 'dbo'.
> so after googling around, I found out I had to do
> GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
> then i could execute it.
> so i have these questions
> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execute
> access to it?
> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
> Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks
>
Is this SQL 2000 or 2005?
David
|||Hi

> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
You will have to be a member of sysadmin server role or db_owner database
role.
DBO is just a privileged user.

> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execute
> access to it?
If you memeber of syadmin server role or db_owner database role you don't
need EXECUTE permission

> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
Public means that every user can execute the sp , do you really want it
:-)))?
"Liming" <lmxudotnet@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168466707.519839.206840@.77g2000hsv.googlegro ups.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
> to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
> procedures.
> however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
> example,
> permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
> owner 'dbo'.
> so after googling around, I found out I had to do
> GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
> then i could execute it.
> so i have these questions
> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execute
> access to it?
> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
> Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks
>

Newbie question on dbo permission

Hi all,
I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
procedures.
however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
example,
permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
owner 'dbo'.
so after googling around, I found out I had to do
GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
then i could execute it.
so i have these questions
1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
need to a dbo?
2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
[dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execut
e
access to it?
3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks"Liming" <lmxudotnet@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168466707.519839.206840@.77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
> to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
> procedures.
> however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
> example,
> permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
> owner 'dbo'.
> so after googling around, I found out I had to do
> GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
> then i could execute it.
> so i have these questions
> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant exec
ute
> access to it?
> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
> Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks
>
Is this SQL 2000 or 2005?
David|||Hi

> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
You will have to be a member of sysadmin server role or db_owner database
role.
DBO is just a privileged user.

> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant exec
ute
> access to it?
If you memeber of syadmin server role or db_owner database role you don't
need EXECUTE permission

> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
Public means that every user can execute the sp , do you really want it
:-)))?
"Liming" <lmxudotnet@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168466707.519839.206840@.77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
> to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
> procedures.
> however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
> example,
> permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
> owner 'dbo'.
> so after googling around, I found out I had to do
> GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
> then i could execute it.
> so i have these questions
> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant exec
ute
> access to it?
> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
> Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks
>

Newbie question on dbo permission

Hi all,
I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
procedures.
however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
example,
permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
owner 'dbo'.
so after googling around, I found out I had to do
GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
then i could execute it.
so i have these questions
1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
need to a dbo?
2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
[dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execute
access to it?
3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks"Liming" <lmxudotnet@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168466707.519839.206840@.77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
> to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
> procedures.
> however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
> example,
> permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
> owner 'dbo'.
> so after googling around, I found out I had to do
> GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
> then i could execute it.
> so i have these questions
> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execute
> access to it?
> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
> Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks
>
Is this SQL 2000 or 2005?
David|||Hi
> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
You will have to be a member of sysadmin server role or db_owner database
role.
DBO is just a privileged user.
> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execute
> access to it?
If you memeber of syadmin server role or db_owner database role you don't
need EXECUTE permission
> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
Public means that every user can execute the sp , do you really want it
:-)))?
"Liming" <lmxudotnet@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168466707.519839.206840@.77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
> I have a sql account in a shared hosting server and my account is able
> to execute scripts to create [dbo].* tables and [dbo].* store
> procedures.
> however, after they are created, if I tried to execute them, I get for
> example,
> permission denied on object 'GetUserDataByEmail', database 'mypm',
> owner 'dbo'.
> so after googling around, I found out I had to do
> GRANT EXECUTE ON [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail] TO 'myuser'
> then i could execute it.
> so i have these questions
> 1. I always thought in order to be able to create [dbo].* tables, you
> need to a dbo?
> 2. If I'm right with #1, then how come my user can't excute
> [dbo].[GetUserDataByEmail], instead I had to explicilty grant execute
> access to it?
> 3. I see in another person's code, it had "GRANT EXECUTE on
> dbo.GetUserDataByEmail to public, what does public mean? anybody can
> execute it? if so, then what's the point of setting [dbo] to it?
> Really appreicate your 2 cents on this. Thanks
>

NEWBIE Question - How do I take an existing Database and Create an exact Copy of it under

Ladies / Gentlemen
How do I take an existing Database and Create an Exact Copy of it
under a new Database Name and having the name of the Database .MDF and .LOG
files changed also?
Thanks for your help.
Mark Moss
How about backup/restore (using the MOVE option for the RESTORE command)?
Or detach, copy files, then attach?
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Mark Moss" <markmoss@.adelphia.net> wrote in message news:OGyb3Q%23mHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Ladies / Gentlemen
>
> How do I take an existing Database and Create an Exact Copy of it under a new Database Name
> and having the name of the Database .MDF and .LOG files changed also?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Mark Moss
>
|||Hi Mark
Since you did not mention your version number I will assume SQL Server 2005.
Please refer to the BOL (Books Online) documentation for syntax details:
Detach the original database using sp_detach_db
Copy the .mdf and .ldf files and give them new names.
Use CREATE DATABASE ... FOR ATTACH to create the new database using the
copied files.
Also see the following in BOL:
How to: Move a Database Using Detach and Attach (Transact-SQL)
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Mark Moss" <markmoss@.adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:OGyb3Q%23mHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Ladies / Gentlemen
>
> How do I take an existing Database and Create an Exact Copy of it
> under a new Database Name and having the name of the Database .MDF and
> .LOG files changed also?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Mark Moss
>
|||Another new thing for me! "... FOR ATTACH" option of CREATE DATABASE.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:ul1ggW%23mHHA.5032@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi Mark
> Since you did not mention your version number I will assume SQL Server
> 2005.
> Please refer to the BOL (Books Online) documentation for syntax details:
>
> Detach the original database using sp_detach_db
> Copy the .mdf and .ldf files and give them new names.
> Use CREATE DATABASE ... FOR ATTACH to create the new database using the
> copied files.
> Also see the following in BOL:
> How to: Move a Database Using Detach and Attach (Transact-SQL)
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "Mark Moss" <markmoss@.adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:OGyb3Q%23mHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>

NEWBIE Question - How do I take an existing Database and Create an exact Copy of it under

Ladies / Gentlemen
How do I take an existing Database and Create an Exact Copy of it
under a new Database Name and having the name of the Database .MDF and .LOG
files changed also?
Thanks for your help.
Mark MossHow about backup/restore (using the MOVE option for the RESTORE command)?
Or detach, copy files, then attach?
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://sqlblog.com/blogs/tibor_karaszi
"Mark Moss" <markmoss@.adelphia.net> wrote in message news:OGyb3Q%23mHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Ladies / Gentlemen
>
> How do I take an existing Database and Create an Exact Copy of it under a new Database Name
> and having the name of the Database .MDF and .LOG files changed also?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Mark Moss
>|||Hi Mark
Since you did not mention your version number I will assume SQL Server 2005.
Please refer to the BOL (Books Online) documentation for syntax details:
Detach the original database using sp_detach_db
Copy the .mdf and .ldf files and give them new names.
Use CREATE DATABASE ... FOR ATTACH to create the new database using the
copied files.
Also see the following in BOL:
How to: Move a Database Using Detach and Attach (Transact-SQL)
--
HTH
Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
www.InsideSQLServer.com
http://sqlblog.com
"Mark Moss" <markmoss@.adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:OGyb3Q%23mHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Ladies / Gentlemen
>
> How do I take an existing Database and Create an Exact Copy of it
> under a new Database Name and having the name of the Database .MDF and
> .LOG files changed also?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Mark Moss
>|||Another new thing for me! "... FOR ATTACH" option of CREATE DATABASE.
--
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:ul1ggW%23mHHA.5032@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Hi Mark
> Since you did not mention your version number I will assume SQL Server
> 2005.
> Please refer to the BOL (Books Online) documentation for syntax details:
>
> Detach the original database using sp_detach_db
> Copy the .mdf and .ldf files and give them new names.
> Use CREATE DATABASE ... FOR ATTACH to create the new database using the
> copied files.
> Also see the following in BOL:
> How to: Move a Database Using Detach and Attach (Transact-SQL)
> --
> HTH
> Kalen Delaney, SQL Server MVP
> www.InsideSQLServer.com
> http://sqlblog.com
>
> "Mark Moss" <markmoss@.adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:OGyb3Q%23mHHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Ladies / Gentlemen
>>
>> How do I take an existing Database and Create an Exact Copy of it
>> under a new Database Name and having the name of the Database .MDF and
>> .LOG files changed also?
>>
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>> Mark Moss
>>
>

Newbie Question

How can you create a relationship between two tables in two different databases? Or can you?
Thanks... Sorry if it is a simple question..You can't create cross database RI...

You'll need to use triggers...

Newbie Question

Hi Guys,

I am new to this Reporting Service world. May be its very simple question.

I have create a report in SQL Server 2005 reporting services and want to link this report with aspx page. How I do this. Just want to link report with default.aspx page so when this page open report also open automatically.

Please let me guide how could I do this.

Regards

I would recommend using the ASP.net ReportViewer control. It will make the web app appear much more polished than just linking to the reportmanager.|||If you don not want anything to change programmtically you can also just display the appropiate report in your frame targeting to the URL of you report on the ReportServer interface. (The one that you see if you navigate through the webservice http://Server/reportserver, e.g. http://server/reportserver?Somefolder/Report&Parameter=SomeValue)

HTH; Jens Suessmeyer.

http://www.sqlserver2005.de|||

Greate!! Thanks for your reply.

I pasted a report control on my aspx page but how I link my report with this page. I used the below code but it giving me error message

ReportViewer1.LocalReport.ReportEmbeddedResource = @.\\Business\Business\RPT825.rdl; (This is my local machine path)

and the Error message is

An error occurred during local report processing.|||

Hi Guys,

Please ignore my previous email. I have fixed the above issue. Now I don't know how to pass a parameter value to a report.

I wrote the below line in my aspx page and when I ran this application it gives me a error message

"The rDate parameter is missing a value"

Below is the code that I wrote in my page_load event

ReportViewer1.LocalReport.ReportPath = @."C:\Business\RPT825.rdl";

Could you please let me know how to pass parameter value to a report.

Regards

|||

ReportViewer1.LocalReport.SetParameters( );

Juran

sql

Newbie question

I'm new to XML and .NET in general and I'm lost in the maze of all the
various Xml classes. What I want to do is programatically create an xml
structure and store it in a database column, for example :-
<FlavourID>0</FlavourID>
<FormID>Form1</FormID>
<ItemKey>EmployeeName</ItemKey>
<PropertyKey>PropertyDataHere</PropertyKey>
<Value>ValueHere</Value>
is one such structure I might want to store in a database column. The reason
I dont store this in 5 columns is that the structure itself is variable. My
problems are :-
1) I dont know how to programatically create a structure - I'm confused with
XmlDocument, XmlDataDocument, XmlNode, XmlTextWriter etc. I basically want
to end up with one single datatype that can be stored in a single column in
a database, which brings me to the second problem:
2) I dont know the best way to store this in a database column. I know there
is some Xml support in SqlServer 2000 and more in 2005, but with something
as simple and small as this maybe converting and storing as Text or Varchar
would be sufficient.
Any help very gratefully appreciated !
"JezB" <jezbroadsword@.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oxp2glBaEHA.524@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
[snip]
> 1) I dont know how to programatically create a structure - I'm confused
> with
> XmlDocument, XmlDataDocument, XmlNode, XmlTextWriter etc. I basically want
> to end up with one single datatype that can be stored in a single column
> in
> a database, which brings me to the second problem:
Here are two good articles on Xml in .Net:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ml03172004.asp
http://support.softartisans.com/kbview.aspx?ID=673

> 2) I dont know the best way to store this in a database column. I know
> there
> is some Xml support in SqlServer 2000 and more in 2005, but with something
> as simple and small as this maybe converting and storing as Text or
> Varchar
> would be sufficient.
In SQL Server 2000 you would store it as a text column.
Bryant
sql

newbie question

how do I grant a user permission to a database from sql server mgmt studio
express ?
I used admin to create the database, granted the user smith full access to
the directory and files for the database. I tried grant the login id smith
access by simply smith as well as mypc\smith. both were rejected
how should I go about granting user permission?
Hi
I don;t use SQL Server 2005 Management Studio Express but this describes how
to do the tasks
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/mgsqlexpwssmse.mspx
You may want use SQLCMD and the CREATE LOGIN/CREATE USER commands if you
have a large number of logins/users to create.
John
"GS" wrote:

> how do I grant a user permission to a database from sql server mgmt studio
> express ?
> I used admin to create the database, granted the user smith full access to
> the directory and files for the database. I tried grant the login id smith
> access by simply smith as well as mypc\smith. both were rejected
> how should I go about granting user permission?
>
>
|||thank you
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:944A0AF9-6167-4698-8610-571B3E8C3148@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I don;t use SQL Server 2005 Management Studio Express but this describes
how[vbcol=seagreen]
> to do the tasks
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/mgsqlexpwssmse.mspx
> You may want use SQLCMD and the CREATE LOGIN/CREATE USER commands if you
> have a large number of logins/users to create.
> John
> "GS" wrote:
studio[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
smith[vbcol=seagreen]

newbie question

how do I grant a user permission to a database from sql server mgmt studio
express ?
I used admin to create the database, granted the user smith full access to
the directory and files for the database. I tried grant the login id smith
access by simply smith as well as mypc\smith. both were rejected
how should I go about granting user permission?Hi
I don;t use SQL Server 2005 Management Studio Express but this describes how
to do the tasks
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...lexpwssmse.mspx
You may want use SQLCMD and the CREATE LOGIN/CREATE USER commands if you
have a large number of logins/users to create.
John
"GS" wrote:

> how do I grant a user permission to a database from sql server mgmt studio
> express ?
> I used admin to create the database, granted the user smith full access to
> the directory and files for the database. I tried grant the login id smit
h
> access by simply smith as well as mypc\smith. both were rejected
> how should I go about granting user permission?
>
>|||thank you
"John Bell" <jbellnewsposts@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:944A0AF9-6167-4698-8610-571B3E8C3148@.microsoft.com...
> Hi
> I don;t use SQL Server 2005 Management Studio Express but this describes
how[vbcol=seagreen]
> to do the tasks
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...lexpwssmse.mspx
> You may want use SQLCMD and the CREATE LOGIN/CREATE USER commands if you
> have a large number of logins/users to create.
> John
> "GS" wrote:
>
studio[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
smith[vbcol=seagreen]

Newbie Question

I'm new to Reporting Services 2005. My question is this. Say I create a
report that retrieves data from database "xyz". Assume also that identical
copies of database "xyz" (identical in schema, not in the data it contains)
might be sitting on many different servers, servicing different clients. Is
it a simple matter to simply change the connection string of the report and
have it retrieve data from a different server the database is sitting on?
I guess what I'm really wondering is what sort of data sits in the
'ReportServer' database and does this data need to get moved to the same
ReportServer database on each server I want to run the report against? If
this is not the case, and I'm hoping it's not, what data actually gets
stored in the 'ReportServer' database.
Thanks.
Amos.The ReportServer database stores the metadata and the catalog.
I does not stores the data used by your reports
I your case, changing the connection string should be enough
Med Bouchenafa
"Amos Soma" <amos_j_soma@.yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
eehPKcEJGHA.984@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I'm new to Reporting Services 2005. My question is this. Say I create a
> report that retrieves data from database "xyz". Assume also that identical
> copies of database "xyz" (identical in schema, not in the data it
> contains) might be sitting on many different servers, servicing different
> clients. Is it a simple matter to simply change the connection string of
> the report and have it retrieve data from a different server the database
> is sitting on?
> I guess what I'm really wondering is what sort of data sits in the
> 'ReportServer' database and does this data need to get moved to the same
> ReportServer database on each server I want to run the report against? If
> this is not the case, and I'm hoping it's not, what data actually gets
> stored in the 'ReportServer' database.
> Thanks.
> Amos.
>

Newbie question

Hi All,
My company has a legacy web application (VBScript/ASP) that includes a
series of forms used to create various reports on SQL Server (or Oracle)
data. Creation of these reports is extremely tedious due to fairly
complicated calculations etc. My question for the group is: Is MS
Reporting Services a valid alternative to the way i'm doing things now? I
need to be able to create new interactive custom reports fairly easily and
link to them via the old web application.
Thanks In Advance,
TeddRS integrates pretty easily with custom web apps particularly for intranet
apps. You can use either URL integration or web services integration. URL
integration is the easiest and fullest featured (you have roll you own a lot
more when using web services). SQL Server reporting is very easy. The main
thing with Oracle is getting all the client apps installed and properly
configured (but that is not too untypical of anything concerning Oracle). I
go against Sybase and SQL Server. Others once up and running have been
successfull with Oracle. With RS 2005 (released in November) my expectation
is Oracle will be easier to go against. It also has a good many improvements
(my two favorites are dynamic sorting and multi-select parameters). I would
suggest getting the 90 day trial and give it a try.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Tedd Simms" <tedd.simms.SPAMTRAP@.cognostech.com> wrote in message
news:yf-dnbYtb-kzmF7fRVn-gQ@.novus-tele.net...
> Hi All,
> My company has a legacy web application (VBScript/ASP) that includes a
> series of forms used to create various reports on SQL Server (or Oracle)
> data. Creation of these reports is extremely tedious due to fairly
> complicated calculations etc. My question for the group is: Is MS
> Reporting Services a valid alternative to the way i'm doing things now? I
> need to be able to create new interactive custom reports fairly easily and
> link to them via the old web application.
> Thanks In Advance,
> Tedd
>|||"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:etoRWSPfFHA.1948@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> RS integrates pretty easily with custom web apps particularly for intranet
> apps. You can use either URL integration or web services integration. URL
> integration is the easiest and fullest featured (you have roll you own a
> lot more when using web services). SQL Server reporting is very easy. The
> main thing with Oracle is getting all the client apps installed and
> properly configured (but that is not too untypical of anything concerning
> Oracle). I go against Sybase and SQL Server. Others once up and running
> have been successfull with Oracle. With RS 2005 (released in November) my
> expectation is Oracle will be easier to go against. It also has a good
> many improvements (my two favorites are dynamic sorting and multi-select
> parameters). I would suggest getting the 90 day trial and give it a try.
Thanks for the response Bruce.
Actually, i'm not too worried about using it with Oracle. I'm trying to
convince my boss to discontinue development and support for it.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "Tedd Simms" <tedd.simms.SPAMTRAP@.cognostech.com> wrote in message
> news:yf-dnbYtb-kzmF7fRVn-gQ@.novus-tele.net...
>> Hi All,
>> My company has a legacy web application (VBScript/ASP) that includes a
>> series of forms used to create various reports on SQL Server (or Oracle)
>> data. Creation of these reports is extremely tedious due to fairly
>> complicated calculations etc. My question for the group is: Is MS
>> Reporting Services a valid alternative to the way i'm doing things now?
>> I need to be able to create new interactive custom reports fairly easily
>> and link to them via the old web application.
>> Thanks In Advance,
>> Tedd
>